Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will have observed from the documents already tabled that a further amount of R46 498 000 requires to be voted to cover expenditure to be defrayed from revenue funds during the year ending 31 March 1975.

The earnings for the current financial year will be dealt with when the main estimates are presented to the House on 5 March 1975, and I shall, therefore, not comment on the revenue prospects at this stage.

The increase in expenditure is attributable mainly to increased traffic, the rise in the price of coal, steel and fuel, the higher rate at which the Administration has contributed to the Sick Fund with effect from 1 December 1974 and the amount which the Administration has to contribute to the recently established Pension Fund for non-Whites coupled with the special wage improvements granted to non-White staff with the inception of the pension scheme.

Under the main head “Railways”, an additional amount of R22,7 million is required mainly in respect of Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works—Head No. 2, Motive Power Operating Expenses— Head No. 4, Traffic and Vehicle Running Expenses—Head No. 5, and Cartage Services—Head No. 6. Apart from the factors I have already referred to, higher maintenance costs, increased consumption of electric tractive current, increased cost of materials, the hire of additional cartage vehicles to cope with increased traffic, and increased payments to private cartage contractors for services rendered also contributed to the increased expenditure under these heads. Of the additional amount of R7,2 million required for Subsidiary Services (Heads Nos. 11, 14, 15 and 16) some R3,5 million is in respect of Road Transport Service (Head No. 15), primarily to meet the bigger fuel bill and the higher cost of spares, tyres and tubes, whilst R3,2 million is required in respect of Tourist Service (Head No. 16) mainly as a result of the extension of the bank settlement plan for the sale of air tickets and more hotel reservations.

Under the main head “Harbours” an additional amount of R2,5 million is required; the major increase being under Head No. 25—Net Revenue Account: Interest on Capital—to provide for recoveries in respect of harbour construction works which were less than originally estimated.

I now come to the main head “Airways” in respect of which an additional amount of R19 million is required under Head No. 31—Working and Maintenance—mainly in respect of a higher fuel account due to increased prices and additional flights, more staff employed as a result of increased traffic and the commissioning of new freight depots, additional expenditure incurred in connection with the repair of Boeing 747 engines, and increases in agency fees and commission.

Currency costs and exchange differences on foreign transactions account for the major portion of the additional amount of R2,l million required under Head No. 35 —Net Revenue Account: Miscellaneous Expenditure.

I shall now deal with the Brown Book items.

The additional amount required in respect of Capital and Betterment Works totals some R51.1 million. Of this sum, additional loan funds in the amount of R10 million are required, R20 million is to be raised by means of a foreign loan and R100 000 will be recovered from local authorities and other sources as contributions towards the cost of various works. The balance of approximately R21 million will be made available from savings on existing appropriations.

Under Head No. 1C—Construction of Harbours—an additional R14,2 million is required for stage 1 of the new harbour scheme at Richards Bay. Hon. members have probably observed that the estimated total cost of this project now amounts to R43 065 900 in respect of the railway portion and R135 347 300 for the harbour portion. The existing cash provision will be insufficient due to escalation in labour and material costs as well as for various other reasons, some of which I will now deal with.

The quay wall structure had to be repositioned to avoid bad foundation conditions and this necessitated the provision of deeper foundations than originally planned. The breakwater also had to be relocated at increased cost to provide better stability. As a result of difficulties encountered in the original concept of constructing the berm wall, a revised method of construction had to be followed and a separate outlet to the sea for flood water has to be provided to avoid danger to shipping and the depositing of silt in the main harbour. The services of an additional dredger and modifications to certain dredging plant also played a role. Due to the increased costs of the project, provision had to be made for an increase in interest charges.

An additional cash provision to the extent of R11,2 million is required under Head No. 1—Construction of Railways— for the new line from Sikame to a point on the line under construction between Empangeni and Richards Bay on account of the accelerated progress of the work and the increased cost of permanent way material and contract work. Under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—an additional amount of R19,6 million is to be voted. A portion of this amount is in respect of works initially authorized under the Unforeseen Works Allotment as a matter of urgency and for which specific provision is now being made. Owing to the escalation of labour and material costs, the rapid progress of contract work and earlier deliveries of material, an additional cash provision of R17,l million is required under this head for various major new works. Of this an amount of R5 million is for improving the existing line between Ermelo and Sikame, which scheme forms part of the coal export project, whilst R2 million is required for section improvements as well as the installation of centralized traffic control between Nelspruit and Lembombo.

Additional appropriation of R6,9 million is required—R1 million during the current financial year—for the deviation of the Groenbult-Rubbervale line. The increase in cost is due mainly to poor tunnelling conditions as well as the general escalation in labour costs and material prices. It is also necessary to provide additional station facilities at Tzaneen and to effect improvements to the permanent way, roads and buildings.

As a result of the higher cost of contract labour and the increased cost of construction and filling material, as well as the higher interest rate on capital expenditure, an additional amount of R1,3 million (R1 million in the current financial year) is required for stage 2 of the railway portion of the Table Bay harbour scheme. The total estimated cost in respect of construction of the intermediate diesel depot at Richards Bay has increased by R2,6 million, of which an amount of R1 million is required during the current financial year. An additional amount of R3 million is required for the elimination of level crossings to ensure that new schemes may be promptly commenced with.

Under Head No. 3—Rolling Stock—the additional appropriation of R2,8 million is required mainly in connection with the accelerated delivery of diesel locomotives; the existing cash provision will be inadequate to meet anticipated expenditure during the current financial year.

The rapid progress made with the work on Pier No. 2, Salisbury Island, the provision of a hostel for Coloureds employed at Walvis Bay and the replacement of the passenger gangway and modification of the travelling gantry at “F” berth, Table Bay harbour, necessitate an additional cash provision of R641 500 to be sanctioned under Head No. 5—Harbours.

The additional cash provision of R600 000 under Head No. 7—Pipelines—is required mainly to meet anticipated expenditure owing to the general increase in labour and material costs. A nominal appropriation of R100 is included under this head in order to allow for the invitation of tenders at an early date in connection with the construction of an additional pipeline for petroleum products from Durban to the Rand.

An amount of R2 million is required under Head No 8—Working Capital—to permit of more loans being granted the staff for housing purposes.

Summarized, the position is that appropriations from Revenue Funds require to be increased by R46,5 million and those in respect of Capital and Betterment Works by R51,l million.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has already provided us with a copy of the Additional Estimates. As is customary, any further information or greater clarity which is desired will be sought in the Committee Stage. Therefore, Sir, I shall not spend much time on the Second Reading, except that I want to elicit a few ideas concerning the general method of cost estimation.

Sir, the Railways like any business, is requested every year to make certain estimates of both revenue and expenditure. It goes without saying that the better one’s statistics extending over the past, the closer one is to the factors relating to one’s business or one’s industry, and the better one’s staff, Sir, the closer one will come to the truth when one is compiling cost estimates. Sir, in my humble opinion the Railways have the necessary statistics; they do have a competent staff. I think they are sufficiently close to the factors which could have an influence on operating costs as well as on revenue, and for that reason I feel that we should simply consider the matter briefly against that background. Actually the Second Reading of this specific Bill is for me, I could almost say, a barometer for establishing to what extent the Railways, as far as this (the 1974-’75 Estimates are concerned, have estimated correctly. I want to say at once that the over-all picture, in my humble opinion, is very favourable. If we look at the expenditure from Revenue Account during the last three years, we find that in 1973 an additional amount equivalent to 3,68% was requested, in 1974 1,46%, and in 1975 2,99%. On the face of it, Sir, this looks good. As far as capital expenditure is concerned, the additional amount requested in 1973 was equivalent to 28,56%, in 1974 to 7,33%, and in 1975, according to the documents now before us, to 11,44%. I repeat that this is by no means a poor reflection, bearing in mind the picture which applied in the past.

But, Sir, we come now to the individual items, and there, perhaps, the picture does not seem very favourable to me, and we shall perhaps have to ask the hon. the Minister at a later stage to give us greater clarity. The additional amounts requested, as a percentage, vary from 0% to more than 100%. If we glance, for example, at page 6 of the Estimates, we find under Head No. 6 that there are three items, Nos. 611, 613 and 615, relating to fuel, hire of vehicles and other running expenses, respectively. We find that the first item, “Fuel”, increased by 44,8%; the item “Hire of Vehicles” increased by 83,7% and “Other Running Expenses”, by 71,2%. On page 8, Head No. 14, we find an item which now appears every year, viz. Item No. 1442, “Battery-operated Trucks”. The additional amount being requested here is equivalent to 55,9%. On page 10 the picture presented is even less favourable. There, under Head No. 16, we have Item 1613, “Miscellaneous Tourist Expenses”, which increased by 104% according to my calculations. These increases are of such a nature that I think that the hon. the Minister should perhaps explain these specific items, as well as the circumstances which led up to them.

Sir, I come then to another matter. There are certain items in regard to which one finds every year that the additional amount requested either remains static at a few million rand, or that the figure increases every year, and this seems wrong to me. I am looking for example at page 12, Head No. 21, Item 2123, “Dredging”. In 1973 an additional R49 000 was requested, in 1974 R185 000, and in 1975 approximately R309 000. Sir, it seems to me that one really cannot stub one’s toe every year. Once one has made an error in one’s calculation for a second year running, then the subsequent picture ought really to be clear, and the hon. the Minister ought to be able to approach very close to the truth. One finds the same picture on page 15, Head No. 31. There one finds, under item 3112, “Fuel and Oil”, that an additional amount of R9 million is being requested, which is equivalent to an increase of 20%. In 1974 the increase was 27,9% and in 1973 it was 19,1%. Here I think once again that the hon. the Minister, aware of the factors which play a role here, ought to know by this time, when it comes to fuel, that one is dealing with an impossible position today, and it seems to me as though an estimate ought to be made which does not place us in the position towards the end of the year that an additional 20% has to be requested here. I say again that the Railways has the means, the statistics and the staff, and it is against this background that we will in future assess the Estimates and see how close the hon. the Minister has come to the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I had intended to speak only in the Committee Stage, but the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech has dealt with a matter which I believe must be dealt with immediately. That is the question of the increased expenditure at Richards Bay. When the Richards Bay Construction Bill was before this House I questioned the amount which had been estimated and said that this was likely to escalate. I was pooh-poohed, I was laughed at and I was ridiculed. I raised it again last year and asked what was wrong at Richards Bay. I questioned the stability of the foundations and I said that this would cost a lot more money. On the construction of the railway line I raised the question of the extra ballast. the millions of cubic tons of rock which were required, and I questioned whether in the harbour itself there was not something wrong. I was told by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor that I did not know what I was talking about, that it was only a lot of rumours and that there was nothing wrong. Today the hon. the Minister admits that the quay wall requires additional expenditure, that it required additional foundations and that the original plans were not satisfactory. He claimed that a new outlet had to be built to deal with flood-waters. They had a model with which to test the whole bay, the floods, the tides and the flow of water. It was all planned but today he tells us that the berm wall required to be changed. Last year I challenged the hon. the Minister—this hon. Minister I think it was and not his predecessor—on the berm wall because I had flown over that harbour and it was quite clear that there was something wrong in the construction of that wall. There was a dark mass of mud instead of a straight line where the berm wall was being built. Again there was evasion. Now the Minister comes to this House and calmly, in the Additional Estimates, tells us that the quay wall was not properly planned and that it needed different foundations. In other words, something was wrong in the original soil tests because otherwise why did they not know what foundations were required? Surely, Sir, if you take proper soil tests and if you have planned your project properly you know what you are building on. You do not halfway through discover that you have to put in bigger foundations. If you are building a berm wall you also have foundation tests done. You have tested your soil and you know what you are building on; and when you are dealing with mud flats you should have some experience of unstable foundations and what it requires to stabilize them. But what is important is that when these matters were raised in this House we received evasive answers. We received ridicule in reply and now we are being asked to vote, on one item alone, on the first stage of the railway portion of the new harbour, 143,17% more than was budgeted for the current year. On an original estimate of R9 080 000, we are now being asked to vote an additional R13 million. But when we queried this, why were we not told that a mistake had been made and that additional money would have to be spent? Why was it denied? Our task in this House is to raise these matters and the duty of the Government is to tell South Africa when it makes a mistake and whether it is going to require extra money. By tradition these Additional Estimates are not usually a matter for serious debate and study. We look at the total overall increase in capital of 11,4%. You do not regard this as a major amount, but when items like this are slipped into the Additional Estimates, I want to lodge a protest. The hon. the Minister must have known in September last year, when we dealt with the main Budget, that there were problems. Why did he not deal with this in the main Budget instead of trying to slip it through on Additional Estimates? I shall take that no further because I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply. Later, in the Committee Stage, there will be an opportunity to deal with his reply.

I would like to add only one more point. In the Railways Select Committee we have granted a greater degree of latitude for adjustment. This should reduce the need for Additional Estimates even more. We have granted a higher percentage, i.e. 1% of the total Budget instead of on any particular item, and we have increased the amounts by which variations from the Budget and transfers may be allowed. Again, this should contribute towards reducing the amounts required in the Additional Estimates and as unauthorized expenditure. The whole object was to make it easier to budget, easier to finance the Railways and less necessary to come to Parliament with requests for unexpected amounts. Since it is only a matter of months since we debated the main Budget, we would have expected a minimal Additional Estimate this year. I shall listen with interest to the hon. the Minister’s explanation.

Mr. Sneaker, when looking at this Additional Appropriation Bill, I must say that it does not fill one with confidence about Railway budgeting. Specifically, I would agree that the R47 million asked for for the Richards Bay harbour scheme seems to be extraordinary, especially in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister did not even mention this at the time of the main Railway Budget last year. Surely, at that stage, there must have been some idea that the quay wall structure had to be in a different position, that the breakwater had to be repositioned, that a deeper foundation for the quay wall was needed, that the original concept was not satisfactory and that a separate outlet to the sea had to be made. I am sure that the hon. the Minister must have known, at the stage of the main Railway Budget last year, that something like this was in the air. Now we are asked to vote an additional R47 million. Not all of that is required in cash this year, but this is nevertheless a considerable increase in the original cost of the whole scheme, to pay for what appears to be bad planning. I also look forward to the hon. the Minister’s reply, because R47 million is a very high price to pay for bad planning.

I want to go further into this question of Railway budgeting. Just slipped into the hon. the Minister’s explanation of where he is going to obtain funds for some of this capital betterment is the fact that R21 million is coming from savings on other heads. One is always pleased to hear about savings, but that Railway budgeting should be such that R21 million can just appear out of a limbo of bad budgeting to provide for some of this seems to me to be most extraordinary. It is not my intention to say anything more at this stage. Obviously we will hear more explanations from the hon. the Minister in committee, but I do feel that, especially on these two important points of budgeting, we should receive a satisfactory explanation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland, who introduced this debate, did what we usually have from their side, viz., first a general commendation and then perhaps a little more praise. I then expected the hon. member to resume his seat, but then he came to the “buts”. Having passed that point, he sought a few points of criticism.

Surely I have to.

It is his task to level criticism, but I still think that his first few sentences were a compliment to the budgeting methods of the Administration, and the success which they have had with the Estimates in general.

The hon. member singled out a few items in respect of which there had, in his opinion, been major increases. I want to refer the hon. member to what I said in my speech. I stated explicitly to this House that these additional amounts which we are requesting for the current year are attributable, in particular, to a few specific factors and circumstances. The first was the increased demands made on the Railways Administration and, in fact, on the Airways as well. I said: “The increase in expenditure is attributable mainly to increased traffic.”

Did you not expect it?

In the course of last year we were dealing with a flourishing economy. A flourishing economy in South Africa of course makes heavy demands on the Administration. I did not expect, and the hon. member would most certainly not have been able to expect either, that the demands which were made on the Railways, in particular during the second half of last year, would continue for such a long period. The same circumstances also prevailed—and I should like to bring this to their attention, they who are so eager to criticize the Government—in respect of the Airways. The problems which arose among other airlines in the world and the problems which we are experiencing are not identical. Our aircraft are full, on domestic as well as overseas flights. Consequently tremendously high demands are being made on our Airways, just as they are being made on the S.A. Railways. This is the first major reason for our requesting these additional amounts. Subsequently, when we come to the Main Budget, the hon. member will see that there is additional revenue. However, it goes without saying that in a service such as the S.A. Railways, where there is additional revenue as a result of providing more services, the expenditure will also be greater. For this reason we had exceptionally heavy expenditure. When one looks at these statements, one sees that there was increased expenditure in respect of overtime in particular. Then there is also the question of fuel. There is a second factor as well which I brought to the attention of the hon. member in relation to this item, viz., that the fuel consumption was not only greater, but the price of fuel had also increased. These are circumstances over which we have no control. The price of coal was raised, and this imposed a tremendously large additional cost on the expenditure of the Railways. Of course, the same applied to the price of oil. I need not elaborate on this, for it is common cause; we know to what extent the price of oil has already increased. Over and above this we also experienced major steel price increases in the course of the year which caused the Railways to shoulder additional costs. In brief: Along with increased consumption there was also an increase in the prices of these commodities. I do not want to elaborate on the particulars now. However, the hon. member referred to a few items, and if he would page back to them he will see that they were to a large extent as a result of the rising costs of certain materials, for example fuel, which are utilized by the Railways.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to Richards Bay. He was extremely proud of having said certain things in the past. If he did in fact guess correctly or was in fact correct in what he said, I give him the credit for that. I do not want to criticize him now; I do not know to what extent he has previously said things that were correct. I do not know whether it was merely a case of trial and error, or whether he did perhaps exercise his good judgment, but in any event that is neither here nor there.

He always guesses correctly.

The hon. member says he always guesses correctly. I am glad to hear that he always guesses. I must say that that is just about what my experience has been.

I am glad to hear that the hon. the Minister admits it.

However that may be, there is something I nevertheless want to tell the hon. member. With such a major undertaking as Richards Bay and the changed circumstances which have come about recently, the hon. member has to expect that there will also be a change in pace in respect of the programming and execution of the works there. The hon. member will be aware of the changed circumstances which came about as a result of the problems which were experienced in Lourenço Marques. As a result of the fact that Lourenço Marques caused certain problems, we have had to approach development at Richards Bay in a different light to what was previously the case. In fact, I want to tell the hon. member at this early stage that we have already changed the programming at Richards Bay. We have decided to cause certain major works there to progress more rapidly to be able to meet the needs which arose as a result of these changed circumstances. I do not want the hon. member to think that this expenditure which is being voted for Richards Bay is the result of incorrect judgment in the past. I know that I mentioned the fact that the foundations of the quay walls have been modified, but I also want to explain to him that there are advantages attached to such changes.

When did you first know?

Details in regard to these matters were submitted to me in December, and it is in fact in this regard that I now want to quote certain particulars.

So they work without letting the Minister know.

No, this submission to me requested additional expenditure. I quote—

At this stage I just want to bring this point to the attention of the hon. member. I know the Second Reading of this Bill does not really lend itself to long speeches and particulars. However, I want to emphasize that these additional costs were not only the result of problems with the foundations. The hon. member will agree with me that one is not always able to foresee the problems experienced with such a major work. Be that as it may, these additional costs which we are requesting here, are not only in respect of weaknesses which were discovered; they are also in respect of certain improvements which are being effected at the Richards Bay harbour, and which are deemed to be essential. For example, R7 million is being provided under the head “Dredging”. The following reasons for this have been advanced—

One cannot say that these are fruitless costs; it is an asset which has been purchased to execute certain works there. All in all— and I think we can discuss this matter further in the Committee Stage—this additional expenditure which we are requesting here is really necessary. I want to draw attention to the fact that although we are asking under this Vote for an increase of R17,5 million in respect of the Railway portion of the Vote and for an increase of R30 million in respect of the Harbour portion, we are asking in this year’s estimates for a cash provision of only R14 200 000.

Mr. Speaker, an additional R47 million is to be voted for harbour works at Richards Bay. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is in a position to give the undertaking to this House that Richards Bay will remain part of the Republic and not become part of an independent Black State.

Mr. Speaker, I think I would be out of order if I were to commence a debate on that matter.

Order! Hon. members cannot conduct a debate on this matter.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules 1 to 4:

Mr. Chairman, with reference to schedule 2, Head No. 1C— “Construction of Harbours” and the hon. the Minister’s explanation thereof, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell this House the date on which the foundations of the newly located quay at Richards Bay were laid. I would also like to know the date on which the new outlet to the sea south of the berm wall was completed, i.e. when the cutting was made. Furthermore I would like to know on what date it was discovered that the berm wall was striking problems. I want to know this because I am particularly interested in comparing this date with the date the Minister quoted, namely 10 December. I saw the cutting myself. Not only had it been cut, but a special type of plastic net had been used to stop wind erosion and to try to stabilize the cutting for the new exit. I saw the foundations myself when I visited Richards Bay in November before last. I have been there since, I have flown over it and now I am told that these things only came to the hon. the Minister’s notice in December last year. I think that there is something seriously wrong if this sort of thing can be happening and the hon. the Minister in charge does not know about it. If major changes have to be made and additional expenditure has to be incurred and the Minister in charge does not even know what is happening in his own department, surely something must be wrong. If this is the position I regard it as gross efficiency. If it is not the position, and the hon. the Minister was aware of it, I want to know why he told us a few minutes ago that it came to his attention only in December. He cannot have it both ways. Either he knew about it or he did not know about it. If he knew about it he cannot hide behind the fact that it is on the Additional Estimates because he only heard about it two months ago. If he did not know about it, he is not doing his job as a Minister. I think that he should clear up the question of the date first before we debate any further.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to Schedule 1, Head No. 2: “Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works”, I should like to know to what the increase of 10% under Account No. 257, i.e. the subhead “Residential Property and General Housing”, is attributable.

Mr. Chairman, I know that it is difficult at this stage, just before the main Budget, for the hon. the Minister to give an authoritative answer. I wish to refer to Head No. 31—Working and Maintenance—which deals with the S.A. Airways. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether as a result of the additional amount of R19 million which is being spent on Airways—mostly on fuel— he envisages a commensurate increase in revenue. In other words, I would like to know whether or not the revenue is expected to be higher than that budgeted for.

Mr. Chairman, as you can understand, it is difficult to find the necessary references in a hurry. I should like to ask the hon. member for Maitland to give me the particulars of what he asked again in a moment.

The hon. member for Durban Point and his party have been in the official Opposition for 27 years now, and therefore do not know very much about Government administration either.

You are playing for time now so that you can get the answers.

No, all that I need, is the reference to what the hon. member for Maitland raised here. Therefore the hon. member need not try to score a debating point. The factual position is that a matter such as this is an engineering problem which is being investigated by the engineers, and in regard to which Estimate proposals are being submitted to the Minister. That is why I told hon. members a moment ago that there are problems, and that changes were consequently made at Richards Bay. Certain proposals for additional appropriations on the Additional Estimates were submitted to me. Those proposals are then approved by me, and are subsequently placed on the Additional Estimates for approval by Parliament.

For millions of rands?

Yes, of course. A report on all the circumstances for which the moneys are required is submitted to the Minister. Most certainly the hon. member cannot expect me to furnish him with the precise day and date in regard to things which happened at that harbour. If the hon. member wants particulars and it is possible for me to obtain them, then I shall gladly furnish them. But a question such as that is in fact ridiculous. It is ridiculous to expect a Minister suddenly to be able to furnish the day and date on which a certain event took place, particularly when it involves an organization such as the South African Railways of the size of which he is as well aware as I am. Therefore I am saying that proposals were submitted to me for inclusion in the Additional Estimates, and I approved of them as such.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked whether there had also been increased revenue as a result of the increased consumption of fuel. The reply to that is “yes”. I told him that heavy demands had been made on the Airways and in fact heavier demands than we had expected. Also as a result of the increased demand for air transport there will not only be increased expenditure—the rising prices of fuel are of course a very important factor —but there will also be increased revenue because more business was transacted during the period.

I have in the meantime obtained the information which the hon. member for Maitland requested. He put a question in regard to Account No. 257, “Residential Property and General Housing”, which falls under Head No. 2, “Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works”, of Schedule 1. The additional amount which is being requested is as a result of the increased prices of building material and the more systematic maintenance of departmental quarters.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for admitting that even on a matter of such vital importance to South Africa as Richards Bay, he does not interest himself in the detailed engineering matters. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said it was impossible for him to know everything that was going on. Yet earlier he dealt with the problems of Mozambique and the fact that this required a speeding up of the work at Richards Bay. He knew that. It is a matter of vital national policy that Richards Bay should be proceeded with as fast as humanly possible. When the original Construction Bill was introduced, we said that he was years out in his planning. We said that by the time it was built it would possibly be too late to deal with increased traffic. This is a matter of immediate urgency and importance for South Africa, not only for the Railway Administration. I would have thought that the harbour under construction will change the whole situation of ships queueing up outside Durban. At one stage there were 45 waiting. It could also have changed surcharges in our harbours for waiting time and the situation in Port Elizabeth and East London with ships queueing up at one stage up to a month, and more. Here is one of the keys to the solution for this incredible congestion, these queues. Something which can make a major contribution towards breaking this logjam, saving the taxpayer and the South African housewife millions in additional costs … [Interjections.] Hon members do not like to hear the truth. Every time that a surcharge is levied on a consignment, it pushes up the cost to the consumer. Here is the key to the solution for our harbour bottlenecks, i.e. to transfer ore traffic and to help to give an additional outlet. The hon. the Minister says that it is a mere engineering matter, that they can spend another R50 million because what is R50 million? After all, it is only South Africa’s taxpayers who are paying it. A year after the time the Minister eventually sets a note to say “Please put it on the Additional Estimates”.

It is not only Richards Bay. There is also the line from Vryheid to Richards Bay which was going to cost R37 million. It subsequently escalated to R70 odd million and now to R130 odd million. Again there is an increase—I am referring to item 3 under Head No. 1—of 119,41%, to be accurate, on what was budgeted for spending this year. The hon. the Minister asked for R9 million and now he wants another R11 200 000. I accept that there must be a speeding up, but he is 119% out with his estimate. Did the hon. Minister not know in September that he was going to require 100% more than he had asked for? This is my complaint.

The hon. the Minister is new to the game; so am I as Opposition speaker, but at least he should be able to read Additional Estimates and take more interest in what is going on in his department. So one can list all the items. There is one item I think I must refer to. It is on page 6, item no. 11, where R17 600 is being asked for for two deadends “twee doodloopspore”. Now apart from the hon. the Minister can he tell us what the other dead-end is? Is it the Deputy Minister who is not able to give them any assistance in this matter? I think that we are entitled to a little more explanation than we have had from the hon. the Minister up to now.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be as hard on the hon. member as my predecessor was on occasion, but he really does not know what he is talking about …

I was right, and that proves that your predecessor was wrong.

He really does not know what he is talking about. He now wants to imply to this House that we have always been working on Richards Bay as a general commercial harbour.

No, an ore harbour.

Now the hon. member is saying that it is an ore harbour. But that is not what he implied here. He was wailing about the housewives. I thought he was going to produce a loaf of bread from his desk again. He referred to the poor housewives who had to obtain relief as a result of the ore or coal which had to go through Richards Bay. No, Sir, if the hon. member wishes to occupy the time of this Committee, then he must really be more serious than that; then he must not dish up such rubbish to us here.

I am very serious.

For the present Richards Bay is being constructed as an ore and coal exporting harbour. I want to tell the hon. member that I gave permission approximately 14 days ago for the immediate commencement of work and planning to develop a portion of Richards Bay as a general commercial harbour as well, but the hon. member is not yet aware of that. We will proceed to do so at this stage already and not at a later stage.

The hon. member referred to Head No. 1 “Construction of Railways”. He had a great deal to say about the R11200 000 which we are requesting there, and about the increase in the amount. Sir, I am not asking for any increase as far as the costs of the project are concerned. The costs of the project still remain precisely the same, but the hon. member presented a picture here which created the impression that I was requesting additional amounts for the costs of the project. All I am asking for is a cash appropriation for this year of R11,2 million, which is part of the estimated costs of the project, and which would simply have had to be paid at a subsequent stage if we did not pay it this year. Sir, I want to ask the member to think before he speaks again.

In reply to the question which was asked here by the hon. member for Orange Grove, I just want to say that the original revenue estimate for the Airways was R210,7 million, and that the revised revenue estimate is R232,3 million.

Order! Before I call upon the hon. member for Rosettenville to speak, I want to point out that we are dealing here with the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation Bill; in other words, the debate is restricted to the reasons for the increase, and I do not want hon. members to discuss the principle of the matter. That is not relevant at all. I have been a little lenient towards hon. members on both sides, but I should be pleased if hon. members would henceforth confine themselves to the reasons for the increase.

Mr. Chairman, I am looking for some elucidation. On page 5 of the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds, Item 551 reads as follows: “Tarpaulins, Canopies and Scotches”. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me how much of the additional R98 000 is being spent on Scotch and what brand is being used. If I am wrong in my interpretation, can the hon. the Minister tell me what this Scotch is?

Bell’s.

The Afrikaans word is “keerwie”.

I am glad that that gets the Minister out of trouble. What is “keerwie”?

They are blocks which are placed in front of and behind the wheels of motor cars being conveyed by train so as to prevent the cars from moving about.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister in regard to the additional R2 million for home ownership schemes—page 27, Head No. 8, Working Capital. Would he indicate whether that is for an extension in numbers or is it due to additional building costs for schemes already established?

Mr. Chairman, my information is that it is an additional cash provision required as the result of more housing loans having been allocated and the higher prices of properties. I also want to tell the hon. member that it has my approval that whereas previously the maximum price was R18 000 it has in the meantime been increased to R22 000 so that the staff can now buy houses up to this amount.

I want to refer to item 94 on page 27 of the Capital Estimates, the increase of R2 million for housing. In asking him what the reason for this is, I would like to thank him for having listened to our pleas to make an additional amount available for housing.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to inform this House that I and my colleagues, until recently captives of a very unenlightened situation, have consulted amongst one another and have decided that we would allow a free vote amongst ourselves. I should also like to say at the outset that it is a privilege and a pleasure for me to support the amendment which was introduced by the hon. member for Houghton. I should like to say that it is a privilege and a honour to do so and at the same time I should like to say that after many years I have the opportunity in an unencumbered way to pay a tribute to the work and the efforts of that hon. member in this House. [Interjections.] As a result of my experience in this House I know what it takes to be in such a position.

Sir, I should like to address the House on the Abortion and Sterilization Bill. Many jokes have been made here about abortion and how it affects the present situation within the United Party. But I would like to say that there is also another medical procedure, and that is the medical procedure which is applied to save the life of a healthy, kicking and viable foetus by bringing on premature birth in the event where the mother is critically ill in body and in mind. And, Sir, I want to tell you that the baby which has been born is very well, is kicking and has very good intentions.

For the future of South Africa?

But it is premature.

The debate on this Bill has been a very interesting one. It has produced a very interesting discussion as well as a lot of interesting information. It has been discussed back and forth across the floor of this House. I feel that the volume of discussion and the vast number of words that has been used, has tended to obscure the vital issue which we have to decide here. This is that in South Africa and in the world with its modern society as it is today, taking into consideration the factors of modern society, the difficulties with which modern society has got to contend, the House must decide whether the present Bill will be, in any way, a measure which will contribute to the improvement of the situation or whether the present Bill will not contribute to an improvement of the situation.

After a study of the Bill as well as discussions with people who are experts in this field, doctors, social workers and others, I have come to the absolute conclusion that this Bill will in no way bring about an improvement in the situation. The Bill and its provisions are totally inadequate to meet a very real need as far as the requirements of our society are concerned.

Let us look at some of the problems that will flow from the adoption of the Bill as well as the application of its provisions. One would have expected the main aim to be to bring relief in respect of the vast number of backyard abortions which are being carried out each year and to bring relief in respect of the many thousands of women who have met with unfortunate circumstances in regard to unwanted, unplanned and undesired pregnancies. One would have expected the aim of the Bill to be to assist these people in some way to avoid the dreadful, difficult, embarrassing and damaging circumstances of unwanted, undesired or unplanned pregnancies. However, this Bill, in fact, only provides for abortions to be placed on a legal basis and under proper control in respect of a small number of cases. The situation will not improve if this Bill is passed in its present form. If the Bill does not make provision for the real factors which apply, the consequences are going to be that hundreds of thousands of back street abortions will continue to take place. In no way will this Bill help the situation, but one out of every 200 mothers involved in these hundreds of thousands of abortion cases will die as a result of those abortions. This will result because of the tortuous nature of the provisions of this Bill and of the tremendously difficult circumstances in which these people will find themselves if they want to make use of the provisions of this Bill. The Bill will result in long delays in obtaining abortions even if they are legal. Costs will increase and fewer abortions will take place under proper clinical and medical care. There has been much talk in this House trying to refute the concept of unwanted children. People have used many arguments to show and to prove that there is no such thing as an unwanted child. I think people who make those allegations should take the trouble to go out into the world, speak to social workers and visit the vast concentrations of humanity in our country where the unsophisticated people of our civilization live and look at the circumstances and degradation there. Thousands of children live under these conditions. They should go and see the heartache and suffering among these people and then come back to this House and make the allegation that there is no such thing as an unwanted child in South Africa. Certainly it is true that there is a waiting list for White adoption. It is also true that the tortuous nature of the conditions governing adoption in South Africa means that many children spend between five and ten years in an orphanage before they are adopted, if ever. That is why our orphanages are so full of children in that age group. It is not an easy thing to adopt a child and the present provisions do not allow people who want to adopt a child to achieve this ideal. I would particularly like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Rosettenville the fact that in South Africa this is not just a problem which exists among the Whites. It is a very big problem among the Coloureds, the Blacks and the Indians, because there are hardly any facilities whatsoever in existence today to assist in having Coloured, Bantu and Indian children adopted. There are hardly any facilities or takers for Coloured, Bantu or Indian unwanted children. It is a fact that there are tens of thousands of children in those race groups who stand no chance of being adopted. They are unwanted children and their whole development, their whole life is condemned by their circumstances. Their lives are condemned by the fact that they suffer from malnutrition and lack of love at birth. They are condemned by the fact that they suffer a lack of education and a lack of proper development in their early childhood. They are condemned by the fact that they enter life weak in body and having been the victims of psychological problems in their formative years.

What do you think of the plan of the hon. member for Pinetown?

I have been asked what I think of the plan of the hon. member for Pinetown. He suffered a setback here when an hon. member brought it to the attention of this House that the hon. member for Pinetown had advanced a figure of three children as his criterion and that an abortion would thereafter be acceptable. However, a moral principle is involved here. The hon. member sitting to my left, very clearly brought it to the attention of this House that those who alleged that abortion was murder, that it was the murder of a foetus or of a living being, was splitting a principle.

†You cannot split or divide a principle irrespective of the fact that there are many hon. members in this House who in their discussion continually split a principle. It is not possible to split a principle. A principle is a fundamental statement or belief. If it is immoral and wrong to murder in the case of a person who has been raped or in the case where the child may be deformed, then it is wrong to murder in any case. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that neither you nor the people on the other side who will take the final decision, will listen to that particular argument. It does not have a leg to stand on.

I believe that this Bill is so bad that this House will not be doing a service to South Africa if it passes it. I believe that since we have waited so long the real service to South Africa would be to send this Bill back; to have another look at it and bring to this House a Bill with the necessary provisions to really render a service in this very important field. It was also said in this House by the hon. member for Rosettenville that it has become fashionable to be ultra-liberal. In his view enlightenment is ultra-liberalism. That is quite untrue. If enlightenment is ultra-liberalism, or if support of enlightened abortion laws is ultra-liberalism, then we will have to say that the United States, even England, Germany, France and the Scandinavian countries are ultra-liberal. The fact, however, is that those countries are not ultra-liberal, they have enlightened legislators, enlightened representatives of an enlightened people. They are the major Western democratic Christian countries in the world.

Not Christian.

They are the major Western democratic Christian countries in the world, and those countries have enlightened abortion laws. There are many people in this House who take fright at the thought that South Africa might accept and promulgate enlightened abortion laws. Anything of an enlightened nature is something to be avoided in the eyes of many people. That is most unfortunate. No, this Bill will not provide for the unfortunate woman who, having been very responsible and having planned her family, having produced two or three healthy children whom she proceeded to look after, cannot obtain an abortion in the interests of those children if she should again fall pregnant. The British law has a specific provision stating that abortion is justified not only in terms of the mental and physical health of the mother or the child that may be born, but also the mental and physical health of her already existing children. In other words, the interests of the family unit and the individual members of the family, the interests of the already existing children, who deserve and must have the undivided attention of the parents, are also taken into consideration. That is what I call an enlightened law.

Everyone agrees it is a bad law.

The statement has been made that in Britain there is abortion on demand. In point of fact this is not so. In Britain there is no abortion on demand, as evidenced by the fact that illegal abortions have not been wiped out. The fact of the matter is that the abortion laws in Britain have resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of back-street abortions and a dramatic reduction in the number of people who die as the result of back-street abortions. America, on the other hand, has got abortion on demand.

Only in certain States, not in all of them.

That is correct. Let us speak about the States where there is abortion on demand.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is a woman’s right to have an abortion.

The Supreme Court has ruled that in America abortion on demand is the right of every woman. I know that the facilities do not exist in every State, but because they do exist in some States and because America is one geographic whole, these facilities are available to all the mothers of America. Now, in America the reduction in the number of abortions which are carried out under non-clinical circumstances, the so-called back-street abortions, is fantastic.

Give us the official statistics.

I do not have the official statistics, but let me tell the hon. the Minister that the position is continuing to improve all the time. In a city like Washington, which has a large unsophisticated population, and where abortion on demand is only a few years old, I was told by people involved of a continuing reduction in the number of back-street abortions that take place. There is also a direct reduction in the number of people who die as a result of back-street abortions.

You are not in the United Party caucus now.

It has been stated here that approximately one out of every 200 people die as a result of back-street abortions. The argument has been put forward that if one has abortion on demand and abortion clinics, all the clinics would be filled with people wanting abortions, leaving no time to do all the other important work. That is not true. The fact of the matter is that the back-street abortion inevitably results in the subsequent occupancy of a hospital bed for a period of about ten days, whereas an abortion performed in a properly controlled abortion clinic can be done in a matter of a few hours. The clinics in existence in America are very interesting to visit. People attending those clinics for abortions do not do so in one long, unending stream. A lot of very good counselling work is also done.

A patient who reports to an abortion clinic, after the initial examinations have been done, is then given very effective counselling by sympathetic and trained counsellors. The patient is in privacy either with her boy-friend, husband, parents or another friend or is alone. She is counselled in private circumstances by a trained, sympathetic counsellor; in other words, another person who has experience of and the ability to deal with problems of this nature. The counselling is in order to put the patient’s mind at ease, to explain the full implications of abortion, to put to her all the facts of life, all the facts of family planning so as to establish beyond a shadow of doubt whether the patient really wants to go through with the abortion and whether the patient is mature and understands all the circumstances involved. The patient then goes away for a while to consider these things. She can return for more counselling and eventually she will decide whether she wants the abortion or not. We therefore have here a sympathetic and understanding service to people who find themselves in these difficult circumstances. If the patient finally decides to have the abortion, it is then done under proper clinical circumstances and is followed up once again by sympathetic contact between the patient and counsellors as such. That is the sort of arrangement which an enlightened country should have—a service to the women of the country provided under the most sympathetic and understanding circumstances to meet their requirements in their hour of need.

I think it is very unfortunate that this Bill should be the product of an all-male commission. It is even more unfortunate that the final decision should be taken in a House where males dominate and predominate to the extent they do in this House. I think it is most unfortunate. It is morally and in any other way wrong that we, as males, should sit here to pass judgment on the fundamental right of women to decide for themselves in regard to their own bodies. How would you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of us feel if our future, our rights and matters pertaining to our bodies were to be decided in a House in which only one male was present to put our views? I fear that the suggestion of the hon. member for Pinetown would be carried unanimously in a House under those circumstances.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am very disillusioned by the Bill as it stands. I believe it will not contribute to solving this fundamental problem. I believe that this House has a duty to South Africa to produce enlightened legislation which is in the interests of the people of the country and not contrary to their interests. I therefore have pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston announced that a free vote had been agreed upon among the group to which he belongs. I can understand that, because he immediately entered upon an exercise which I am sure will not be appreciated by the other members of his party. He immediately entered upon an exercise in courtship with the hon. member for Houghton. I am sure that it was destiny for him to act as a free individual in propagating that courtship.

There is another aspect which arose and which is interesting as a motivation for a wider and freer access to abortion than is permitted in the Bill. It arose when the hon. member for Bryanston dealt with a problem which I think we are all very well aware of. I refer to the difficult situation in which our non-White people find themselves in South Africa because of socio-economic conditions.

These conditions were built up over the years. One thinks of poverty, the lack of proper education and the fact that family planning has not yet permeated through to vast numbers of our non-White peoples. The result is that there are many unwanted babies, unwanted for economic reasons but not in terms of human feelings as far as the families are concerned. I would have thought that the hon. member who has just spoken would have felt that the answer to that problem was not merely to take the easy way out and say “let us abort all the unwanted children because of socio-economic conditions”, and that he would have pleaded for the fact that the individual who wants to keep a child should not have to undertake abortion purely for socio-economic reasons. However, on reading the speech that was broadcast over the air last night by the leader of that group, it seems to me that there is a major policy change which has taken place in this group since they left the official Opposition. As I have said, the significant point made by the hon. member was that one meets a socio-economic situation by resorting to a liberal system of abortion on demand. What was said last night is significant in relation to what the hon. member has just said. That party apparently believes that we need safeguards that will ensure that in fact the Whites can survive. Is that their attitude now? Their attitude towards the non-Whites was that family planning is necessary so that we will not be engulfed by their numbers, and so on.

When did he say that?

It was said by the hon. member for Yeoville in his broadcast last night. Is this their attitude now? I think I need not go further with the approach to this problem offered by the hon. member for Bryanston this afternoon to show how hollow their protestations are of what they stand for and what their attitude is towards the problems of the non-White people in South Africa.

Sir, while looking at the evidence that was heard by the Select Committee, I found that there were two very important aspects which were emphasized there. The first was that there is no such thing as a universal juridical attitude to abortion. The justifiability or otherwise of abortion remains a highly personal matter intimately related to the individual conscience. Secondly, I believe it is apparent from the evidence that was heard that, as in other areas of social life, when dealing with this issue, the Parliament in a democratic system is subject to inhibitions which flow from deeply rooted religious and traditional attitudes. For this reason I believe that it is correct that there should be a free vote for individual members of this House. I believe it is appropriate and desirable that that should be so. However, I do not think that we can deal with this matter when we have to listen to—and I hope the hon. member for Houghton will not take it amiss—her most vehement attack on the measure that is before us. All of us in this House have to wrestle with problems of this nature, particularly when they are charged with personal, religious and traditional aspects. However, her attitude was that, as far as she was concerned, she was the only one who had the right answer and that she would rather have no Bill at all than have the Bill that is before us this afternoon.

I want to say that I support this Bill as it is before us for two basic reasons. The first is that it does clarify the legal position in regard to abortions in certain specific cases. I must disagree with the hon. member for Rosettenville in his interpretation of what the legal position is although he did in fact quote from one of the standard legal books on criminal offences. In hix evidence before the Select Committee —and this was one aspect of the evidence that impressed me considerably—Prof. S. A. Strauss of Unisa made some very interesting observations. I believe that he had done a great deal of research before giving evidence and I should like to take the liberty of referring this House to two extracts from his evidence before the Select Committee in regard to the legal position. On page 63 of the Select Committee Report. Prof. Strauss referred to certain cases that had come before the court and, in particular, the Van Druten case. This is what he said—

Prof. Strauss went on to state what in his view the present position was. He said—

Prior to this, he had stated on page 61 of the Report of the Select Committee—

I believe that this very restricted approach has been enlarged upon and expanded to meet certain justifiable circumstances under this particular Bill. In one of the cases referred to by Prof. Strauss, Mr. Justice Hiemstra stated that it was necessary in dealing with matters of this nature—to provide for something that has evolved in common law and which then has to become statutory—to give expression to the gradual—I want to emphasize this word used by Mr. Justice Hiemstra—evolution and change of the human approach to social conditions. I believe that that is exactly what the Select Committee has done, viz. to give expression to the gradual evolution and change of the human approach to social conditions. I also want to disagree with the hon. member for Parktown whose attitude was: Let us jump in at the deep end right away and make it abortion on demand. I think that that would be bad legislation and would also be wrong. In his evidence before the Select Committee, Prof. Strauss gave his opinion of the draft Bill which was then before the Select Committee. He said that the provisions of the Bill were realistic and yet not over-permissive. These remarks are from a man who is known to us. He is not a person whom one would call a highly conservative thinker. He is a man who has broad and modern views and his realistic approach to this matter impressed me when reading the evidence given before the Select Committee. The first point here is that the health of the mother is taken into consideration. The consideration which applied in the previous Bill, that there should be a serious threat to the health of the mother, has been eliminated from this Bill. The hon. member for Houghton referred to this matter. When it comes to the question of physical health, the operation must be necessary merely to ensure the mother’s physical health; the serious threat is one which is restricted solely to the mental health of the mother and not her physical health.

Serious permanent harm.

To the mental health?

Yes.

But the hon. member implied in her speech that serious harm to health was also a consideration.

No, you are wrong.

I accept that. I must have misunderstood the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested that this Bill does not permit of abortion in the case of the pregnancy of girls under 16 years of age. I find it difficult to follow that argument because as I read the Bill as it is now before us there is no prohibition. A girl under 16 would be in exactly the same position as any other woman; she could have an abortion under particular circumstances. To allow abortion on demand merely because the girl is under 16 would, I think, be a wrong principle to adopt. If such a provision were inserted in this Bill, it would mean that because the girl is under 16 she could have an abortion on demand, but if she is over 16 she would be subject to the restrictions provided for in this Bill.

Sir, I also want to say that I think it was unjust to say, as the hon. member did, that the problems of urbanization are simply ignored in this legislation. I think it is also wrong to say that medical, humanitarian and social considerations which would justify abortion have been ignored in this Bill; they have been taken into consideration. I do not believe we can suggest at this stage that the problems which arise as the result of conception can be solved merely by allowing an escape through abortion on demand. Sir, a conception may well arise through negligence; it may arise through ignorance, or it may arise purely through permissiveness. To give blanket permission for abortion on demand in all those circumstances, I believe, is not going to assist us in dealing with the social problem. It has been suggested by the Abortion Reform Action Group, in the questionnaire circulated by them, that—

Sir, I agree 100% with the last sentence, but I do not think it is right to say that because education in family planning and in the use of contraceptives is defective in the country as a whole, or that because an individual is negligent in applying methods which are known to be available, the door must be open to abortion on demand. I cannot follow that argument, and I believe that it would be a wrong approach. Sir, I do not believe that this is the last time that this House is going to discuss this legislation. When legislation is passed in matters of this nature, one always finds that there are situations which have not been adequately covered, and I am sure that this measure is going to be brought back to the House for amendment, but I would much prefer that we move from firm base to firm base in introducing this system into South Africa rather than that we make provision in this Bill for abortion on demand. I want to say that I believe that the problem situation necessitating back-street abortions is a very serious one and one which does give a good deal of concern to medical authorities and to the public at large. The hon. member for Houghton quoted from a statement which I have read before in this House in 1970, I think, on the question of the situation in the Groote Schuur hospital, where I had the privilege of being chairman of the board for some time. It became necessary in that hospital to open a special ward to deal with these cases of septic abortions. Now, what is the answer? Do you open ten wards and let them all come in to have abortions on demand, or do you endeavour to take steps in regard to the socio-economic uplift of the people? I may say that these are mostly Coloured people who come in there. Should one not try to uplift these people so that this type of procedure is not necessary? I do not believe that abortion on demand is going to meet the problem which we have to face in this country. We should rather aim at family planning and at the socio-economic uplift of our people. I think that is the approach that we have to adopt, and not have abortion on demand. I want to say that I was impressed by the publication which was recently handed to us in regard to what is being done to expand family planning and education in this country. I therefore want to say that I welcome this Bill as it stands. I believe it introduces a curative aspect in so far as the problems which give rise to the need for abortion are concerned. It introduces a curative aspect in certain spheres and, what is more important, I believe it focuses the attention of the country on the necessity for the preventative measures that must be taken to ensure that circumstances do not arise other than these specific ones dealt with in this Bill which could give rise to a request for abortion. For those reasons I support the Bill as it is before us.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with a great deal of interest to the discussion that has been taking place on this Bill, and it seemed to me on occasion, listening to the contributions made by various members of this House, that this discussion has been taking place almost in a vacuum. I want to clarify this by saying that during the debate we have had various estimates as to how many illegal abortions take place in South Africa each year. The hon. member for Rosettenville, for example, was very scathing about the estimate of 200 000 which has been mentioned on various occasions. I myself would think that the estimate by Professor Strauss of UNISA of something over 100 000, is probably reasonably realistic. But whatever the number, and it is unimportant, I do not believe there is anybody in this House, including the hon. member for Rosettenville, who will deny that many thousands of back-street abortions take place every year. This is a fact of life, Sir. They do take place. Abortions are taking place every day by the hundreds. When one looks at the Bill before us. I believe that it does not begin to deal with the situation as it is. We cannot run away from the fact that 100 000 or more abortions are taking place every year. What influence will this Bill have on the number of abortions that do take place? I think the answer to this is that it will be very little.

Then you should have no laws at all.

I do not believe that this Bill has got to grips with the situation at all. It does not begin to get to grips with it. It hardly even scratches the surface, and because of this it is a bad Bill. It really makes very little positive contribution towards solving an enormous problem. Only minimally does it contribute towards a solution at all. Certainly what it has done is to make abortion under certain circumstances legal, and perhaps one should be thankful for that, but it does not go far enough. At the most this Bill will affect the cases of a few hundred individuals a few hundred when related to over 100 000 cases per year. Certainly a solution is not easy, but I believe that this Bill has closed its eyes to what is actually happening and it dabbles on the outskirts of a problem which really needs to be looked at with a far broader vision and with a far broader appreciation of the factual situation. It is out of touch with reality. Abortion is already with us. What we should in fact, be talking about in this House is abortion reform, not the pros and the cons of abortion; that is here. We should be talking about abortion reform and we should be trying to take the abortions away from the back streets and to solve the problem in a more sensible manner. None of us likes the situation and none of us likes the thought of abortion. We do not want to encourage it. The question of the morality of the removal of a foetus is a highly complicated ethical one. But, whatever our moral viewpoint, it does not stop the 100 000 abortions that are taking place every year. Surely it is possible for us to face up to the problem as it really is.

I do not believe that this Bill achieves anything. To me it seems a rather poor attempt at providing a sop to our consciences. What we should be doing, is looking at this with far more breadth of vision and trying to do something about all these back-street abortions that are taking place. This Bill will stop none of them. In fact, it might contribute towards aggravating the situation as it is at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to enter into any detailed debate on this measure. I think that most of the views that can be expressed on the Bill have been expressed. I believe, however, that it is my duty, as a member of this House when exercising a free vote, not to give that vote in silence but to state where I stand on this matter. This I do because it is a matter of individual conscience, a personal matter which affects every family and particularly every young person in South Africa.

I have certain reservations; I want to say immediately that I am opposed to abortion on demand. As a father of daughters, I can think of nothing more calculated to undermine the traditional norms—the sort of family life—in which I believe than the possibility of abortion on demand, something that can be had simply for the asking. I believe that our task is to try to educate and to train people to standards and practices which will make this unnecessary. I feel, however, there are circumstances which are not covered by this Bill. These are circumstances outside the scope of the current provisions which it will be necessary to look at again. There are certain social and socio-economic circumstances—circumstances that could be defined and which could be determined under strict control— which should be provided for. I do not accept that this should simply be that you do not want the baby or that you cannot afford it, but there are circumstances, which I will not go into or try to outline, in regard to which a body could be appointed to consider and judge the merits or otherwise of requests for abortions.

I do not often agree with the hon. member for Houghton, but I believe too that a child of 14 or 15 years of age has not reached a stage in life where that child can make a decision of this nature for herself. There the circumstances are such that there should be provision for young children of that age to be able to have a legal abortion under proper medical control. They are not old enough to have judged and to have weighed the consequences of a momentary slip. They get into bad company, they go out with a party—girls today often look much older than they are—and the consequence of one foolish action can ruin a life. Those children are, to my mind, not capable mentally or emotionally of taking the decisions that are necessary and of exercising the responsibility that is necessary. I would like to see those under 16 years of age, subject to proper medical examination and control, permitted to have abortions.

Also married girls?

Obviously only those who ask and require it.

How old must they be to marry?

They can marry any time after they have turned 15. Then, if they want to, they are entitled to do so.

Where did you vote on the Bill allowing girls of 15 years to marry?

I voted against the lowering of the age myself, because I do not believe that a child of that age can make this sort of decision for herself. I believe that we have a duty to protect young children.

I will also support the amendment proposed to delete the word “permanent” in regard to mental damage and to substitute “serious”, because I do not believe one can judge permanence in a matter of this kind. The dilemma is that to vote against this Bill is to restore the status quo. I cannot vote against this Bill and I cannot vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton which makes for a wide-open door.

It is not, you know.

Not the wording no, but it opens the door.

I think the Bill is too restrictive.

The amendment says the Bill is too restrictive, but it does not give an alternative. I do not think we are ready to give the alternative in this debate, but I believe we will have to look at this again in order to expand it and to bring in certain other categories. In this debate we can deal with “children” and with “serious” as opposed to “permanent” damage, but I do not have a formula. I do not pretend to have a formula to deal with the socio-economic problems to which I have referred. However, I believe that we have to give our attention to this and that we will have to come back to this House when we have found the formula which will differentiate between demand abortion and specific exceptional cases where abortion is necessary. I cannot vote for an open amendment, I cannot vote against the Bill and will therefore support the Bill as well as the amendments to which I have referred. I want to conclude by saying that in future we will have to look for some formula to broaden the scope in particular, exceptional and emergency cases.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that at the beginning one should express appreciation to the members of the Select Committee for the excellent work they did. They produced, under difficult circumstances, a Bill which endeavours to meet the problem. I must make it clear that I have difficulty in dividing myself between being a human being with a conscience and a legislator in this instance. I feel—and I am grateful to my caucus and my leader for allowing us a free vote— that I should speak on behalf of those people who for religious reasons are totally opposed to abortion in any form.

I cannot support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Houghton, because it seeks to broaden the scope of the Bill and asks us to “take full cognizance of the medical, humanitarian and social considerations which justify abortion”. If the words used were “lead to an” instead of “justify” I think I may have supported the amendment. I believe that this is where the problem lies. The hon. member for Orange Grove was quite right when he said that we had not come to grips with the situation, but one cannot do that in the form of a Bill because the factual situation is partly socio-economic and partly the permissiveness that has arisen as a result of the triumph of the cult of humanism over the moral codes of the old-established religions. We have heard a great deal in this debate about family planning, sex education and what have you, but we have heard nothing whatsoever, or very little indeed, about appealing to our educational institutions, to our schools and our universities, to our Churches and our places of religion to re-instil a moral code in the youth of South Africa. I believe that this is of the essence. It is more important than merely to say: “All right, there are pills and devices available to prevent pregnancy, so have a good time and be permissive.” I enjoyed my youth, but I am grateful to say that I was never responsible for anyone having an abortion, and I believe that the youth of South Africa today should be restored to a moral code that believes in their responsibility to the females of this country. I believe that this is a message which should go out from this House to the youth, the families and the unmarried people of South Africa. Let us get back to that old-fashioned thing called morality. Let us have it taught to our children. Fair enough, let us have sex education, but with sex education must go that morality. Let our churches and our religious institutions take up this code and spread it among our people.

I am afraid that I have difficulty with clause 3(1)(b) which reads: “Where the continued pregnancy constitutes a serious threat to the mental health of the woman concerned.” I know that my friend, the hon. member for Rosettenville, the members of the Select Committee, the Minister and all the doctors in this House are ethical men. Nevertheless, there has been the recent case of Prof. Crichton and Dr. Maharaj. Before it was possible for the registrar to find out, how many abortions could they not have performed in terms of this clause? I received a communication from the Religious Defence League the other day. It contains a significant paragraph. I take it their facts are correct. The article states—

This is very strange. It is reported that the reasons for abortion are very seldom psychiatric, and yet in a State in America one finds 86% of abortions performed for this reason. I have extreme difficulty with this clause. I shall not propose an amendment, but I feel I should express my opinion on behalf of those who are unable to express themselves. I shall vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. I shall not vote against the Bill because voting against the Bill will be a vote to return to the status quo. I shall, however, abstain from voting either for or against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that I shall support the Bill as it stands, but because I have grave reservations I do believe that it is my duty to express my views in this debate. It is quite obvious to me that although it has been decided that there will be a free vote, the hon. members on the Government side will vote en bloc for the Bill. Knowing them as we do, this is quite understandable.

We must accept, and I believe most of us do accept, that abortion is a fact we must face up to. Nothing in this world, hence no legislation against abortion, can alter this fact. If I do not support the Bill as it stands, we shall revert back to the status quo. It certainly will not solve anything either because, as we know, abortion is illegal in South Africa today. I want to state quite clearly that I myself, and many people who have discussed the matter with me, believe that we should have abortion on request. There should be no arguments about it and we should not try to be clever about it. However, knowing the Government members as I do after so many years it is no use trying to reach for the sky and bidding too high only to find oneself returning to the status quo. After all, it is the prerogative of every person in South Africa to commit suicide and “pass on” if he does not wish to live any longer, or if he is tired of life and sick of this Government.

Do you mean like the “Reformatory” has done?

Yes, it is also their prerogative to commit political suicide by joining some other stupid little splinter group. It is every man’s and every woman’s prerogative to do that. By the same token I believe that it is every woman’s prerogative to decide her own destiny in this regard.

Do you want her to commit suicide?

If she wants to commit suicide, yes, then there should be no law to prevent her from doing so. If she wants to have an abortion she should not be restricted in doing so. We saw at the outset that the Select Committee was formed to investigate abortion and sterilization in South Africa. After the House had gone into recess a commission of inquiry was appointed. What amazes me is that not one female was appointed to the Select Committee and the commission of inquiry. This is what upsets me. In fact, I am very distressed about it. I believe that in an issue of this kind the majority of members on the commission of inquiry should have been women. There is no doubt about it. I believe that it is grossly unfair that at the outset this commission should have been comprised of men only while they are least affected by abortion. It has been mentioned, and I have read through the report, that very few women were prepared to give evidence. Small wonder, because if the majority of the members of the commission of inquiry had been women, women would have come in their hundreds to give evidence. As I said, I believe in abortion on request, and I believe that this will come in time, but at least we are getting somewhere by accepting the Bill as it stands. It was mentioned that if there were to be abortion on demand, back-street abortions would not be minimized. I agree, but this Bill as it stands today certainly is not going to minimize it either; not by one case. Two hundred and fifty thousand abortions are performed annually in South Africa.

Where do you get that figure?

You have only to read the latest newspapers to see that. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that I am being conservative in my estimate when I say there are at least 200 000 cases of abortion taking place in the Republic of South Africa annually. It has been difficult in the past for medical practitioners or family doctors, as I prefer to call them, to avoid doing their duty where necessary. It is no use just talking about family planning even though family planning and education are mentioned here. We are dealing with abortion; we are dealing with cases where the woman is already pregnant. It is no use coming at this stage and saying “You should have planned better,” or “you should have been educated better.”

Quite rightly this Bill covers all races in South Africa but, as has already been said, while it covers all races in South Africa, the Bill covers far too little. Twenty five percent of the bed space in the gynaecological wards of all our hospitals in South Africa is occupied by women being nursed for the effects of self-induced or back-street abortions. One thinks too of the great amount of blood supplied by the blood transfusion services to victims of back-street abortions. I do not want to go into details, but the relevant figures are alarming.

As I have said, I do not want to go into detail. Much has been said about the Bill. Personally I believe in straightforward abortion on request, and I believe that this Bill is at least a step in the right direction. It is a beginning in that it is now legalizing abortion, thereby making the position ever so much easier for all concerned, in particular for our medical practitioners in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I accept the broad principle of the Bill before the House. The commission has endeavoured, from a humanitarian point of view, to remove the harsher aspects of our present restrictive law on abortion, but nevertheless I do have two difficulties with this Bill. The first involves the sanctity of life. Nowhere in this Bill is a limit placed on the time period within which an abortion can be performed. I go along with the authorities who advance the view that an abortion performed after three months constitutes the taking of life. Those hon. members— we have heard a few this afternoon who claim that abortion is a matter for the mother to decide on and who claim that she should be able to have abortion on demand—I feel cannot believe in the sanctity of human life. In fact, the hon. member for Parktown said: “All life conceived by mistake, should be erased.” If this is progressive thinking, the logical consequence is Nazism at its worst, i.e. euthanasia and the gas chambers. I wish to refer the House to an account, from Dr. F. R. F. Gardiner’s book Abortion, of a case where abortion was performed without there being any time limit imposed. This particular case occurred in Glascow in 1968. I quote—

To my mind, the best way to have resuscitation is to leave the child where it is. I consider this to be murder and that such a law should not permit such licence, In this Bill before the House no time limit exists to prevent such a ghastly situation occurring. I feel that the Bill should be amended and I shall move such an amendment at the Committee Stage.

The second difficulty that I have with this Bill, is in regard to clause 3 (1) (b). I feel, like the hon. member for Albany, that the threat to a woman’s mental health is a difficult factor to assess. I wish again to refer to this book on findings in America on this question of psychiatric analysis. There they have three problems one of which is that psychiatry is an undeveloped field of science. He says—

They have a second finding that there are different schools of thought and that these psychiatrists are often violently opposed to various findings, and thirdly, that people try to circumvent the law by finding refuge in psychiatric analysis. This man says—

I feel that the word “permanent” has been included in the wording of clause 3 (l)(b) in an effort to close a possible loophole. I do wonder if psychiatrists can certify permanently. Apart from these two matters, I feel that the Bill is a sincere effort to avoid our estimated 200 000 back-street abortions. Incidentally, that exceeds the number of deaths in the internment camps during the Second Anglo-Boer War. It is also an endeavour to avoid the diseases and deaths that occur from these efforts.

In conclusion, I agree with the hon. member for Houghton that it is regrettable that there was no woman member of the commission. I feel that the hon. member has been reticent rather than progressive in serving the women of South Africa by allowing the commission to be monopolized by selfish male chauvinists.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is perfectly clear that the difference of opinion that exists here is not with regard to the necessity for this Bill but rather as to how wide the terms of the Bill should be in its provisions. There is no doubt that despite the fact that most of the hon. members of the House seem to be satisfied that a Bill of this nature is necessary there are a considerable number of women in this country who are very strongly opposed to the legalizing of abortion on the grounds that it is an interference with human life in the process of its conception and development. In the constituency which I represent I have been the recipient of a number of letters and petitions from women and young girls, from teenagers and women possibly in their twenties who have strongly opposed the passage of a Bill of this nature. They express their opposition to legalized abortion in South Africa and are horrified that in South African Government can join the trend of Europe and America in allowing the wholesale murder of innocent babies who have not even had the chance of survival. This indicates immediately how strong this feeling is in our country as it probably is in many other countries. It is particularly strong in a country like South Africa, however, where the religious tenets play a very important part and where family life is very much bound up with this question. It indicates what tremendous opposition there is to a Bill of this nature. One therefore has to approach this matter not only objectively, but also in the light of the views of the objectors whose objections must be met and whose views must be considered. One of the problems facing most people in considering this matter is the threat to the life of the mother. As was pointed out by the hon. gentleman who spoke before me and who referred to the question of euthanasia and the use of gas chambers during the last war, the world takes a very serious view of this question of the taking of human Life. But, as I said, one has to look at this matter objectively; one has to consider the health of people generally; one has to consider the survival of the person within whose body this foetus exists. One has to consider the circumstances which contribute to the mental and physical health of the woman concerned; one has to take into account the circumstances under which pregnancy has resulted and the effect that it has had on the woman who may not have been a willing partner in this human process of reproduction. Sir, unbound as I am by any other consideration save the interests of the constituents whom I represent, I hold the view that this Bill should be supported because it is restricted in its application, and I think this is an important step in dealing with a problem of this nature which has resulted in so much harm, so much tragedy and so much sadness in the lives of people in this country. I have heard it suggested. Sir, that there are some 200 000 illegal abortions a year. I know that in Britain before the 1967 Statute was passed, there was an average of between 60 000 and 100 000 illegal abortions every year. Sir, many women have died in this process, and our hospitals are full of cases of serious illness resulting from the inadequate manner in which these operations have been carried out, but I do feel that in the interests of good health, in the interests even of the unborn child, in the interest of the mental health of the woman and having regard to the possibility of a serious deterioration in her mental condition if the pregnancy is not terminated, this House should at least take the first step to enable abortions to take place in prescribed circumstances under hygienic conditions and under proper medical supervision. Sir, I do not think one can be too conservative in this field. In adopting the approach that is being adopted in this Bill, I think we will be able gradually to obtain a consensus of thinking in this country on the question as to how far we should eventually go in settling a problem of this nature which cannot be dealt with easily merely by talking about liberalizaing laws or by following the view of other countries which seem to have gone very much further than we are going in this Bill. I think we must consider this issue from the point of view of our own society, because we have a society which is peculiar to our own country; we have views which are peculiar to ourselves as a people; we have different religions and religious outlooks which are peculiar to ourselves. This applies right through, not only to Whites, but also to non-Whites among whom tribal laws, superstition and various other forms of belief have existed for centuries, beliefs which are not easy to break down. Therefore, taking it by and large and thinking of the interest of the community at large, I think we are justified in placing on the Statute Book the machinery to enable these matters to be dealt with on a basis which will be acceptable to all and which will be in the interest of the community as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my sincere thanks to all hon. members for their contributions to this debate. It was a debate in which very divergent views were expressed, but it was also one in which there was a high degree of participation, I could almost say by all the members. I had by no means expected so many members to express opinions on this matter or to know so much about this particular subject. I am amazed at the knowledge of some of my hon. friends on that side, and on this side too. Nevertheless this is a subject, without being frivolous, in which the public takes an interest, a subject that has been dormant in more than one respect for many years and which has given rise to a great deal of uncertainty and confusion and problems and heartbreak. It was therefore as well that there was a full discussion and that everyone could express his opinion, each according to his feelings on the subject, and also that we could be candid in our views. As I have said, these views varied and bore evidence of thorough study and of knowledge and I think the public appreciates this. Medical, technical, social and other reasons were advanced here to substantiate certain arguments. It is, of course, impossible for me to agree with all them, and because there were so many opinions, I shall probably have to furnish fairly extensive replies to some of the ideas put forward here.

†Now, in the first place, I have to refer to the hon. member for Rosettenville, who opened this debate. He was a member of the commission and I must tell him that I am gratified with the way in which he approached this problem. His was a balanced view. He advanced very cogent reasons for supporting this Bill and I must thank him for his kind words about what we are doing in regard to family planning in this country. As he said, it is perhaps better to try to arrest the problem at the start. In that he was followed later on by the hon. member for Umbilo and also by the hon. member for Green Point. They too took cognizance of what the department was doing. It is, in fact, doing its utmost to provide good family planning, a structural plan which we are at the moment in the process of implementing. I commend this plan to hon. members. I am sending it to all of them.

The hon. member raised the question of permanent injury to the health of a woman in the psychiatric, mental or the medical fields. He was particularly perturbed about the position that in the psychiatric field we were not too sure as to whether a condition was permanent or not. I just want to draw his attention to the fact that the Bill reads as follows—

The question of permanency must be considered, as the hon. member agreed, in the light of available scientific knowledge.

If we reduce “permanent damage” down to the scientific knowledge that we have, we can at the moment perhaps only think of two conditions, namely endogenous depression and schizophrenia. As time goes on others may come. There may also be other reasons where the weight of evidence suggests that there is a possibility of permanency. In this connection I think that we must allow ourselves to be led by the integrity of our psychiatrists. What is permanent today may become temporary tomorrow and vice versa. We do not know. However, in the Bill as such we are making provision for such a development. Hon. members will become aware of this if they read the Bill carefully.

*The hon. member for Fauresmith contributed a fine description of what the commission had done and what motivated them in arriving at their findings. I want to thank him for this and also associate myself with him in regretting that there was even a suggestion that our medical practitioners were largely to blame for illegal abortions being performed. I want to quash that suggestion. I want to break a lance for our medical practitioners in that they do not belong to a profession that is only out to make money. They are faithful to the philosophy that life is sacred. If the Government were to decide on legislation that permitted abortion on demand by turning a blind eye, the medical and nursing professions in our country would be two of the most unhappy professions we have ever had in our country. It is not, therefore, those who deal with the problem of abortions technically and from day to day who are objecting to our having laid down certain limitations in the Bill.

†The hon. member for Berea mentioned a few quite interesting facts. I did not know that the hon. member for Houghton at some stage in the distant past said that she was not prepared to serve on commissions. Perhaps I am wrong in deducing that, but that was what the hon. member for Berea alleged.

There must be something wrong somewhere.

The hon. member also said that at the time of the appointment of the commission a female Member of Parliament belonging to the United Party was not available. The question of a woman serving on the parliamentary commission therefore does not come into the picture. I find that interesting because a lot has been made of it. The hon. member gave a very good statistical analysis of the evidence before the commission and I must say that I appreciate it. He put things in a better perspective.

*The hon. member for Brentwood indicated to us in a moral way—not a moralistic way—where the medical profession stands in regard to this matter. He also put things in better perspective by saying that it must be for reasons of health that an abortion can be justified. By “health” he meant bodily as well as mental health. However, we also provide for other exceptions that could occur because this is a matter that could change in time through a process of evolution, which is necessarily present in any science. The hon. member correctly pointed out that the psychological aberrations that may arise from abortion have thus far not been determined with precision. We are not entirely sure, of our case in this regard. He raised the interesting point that a layman who performs an abortion should be punished more heavily. Our view when it comes to penal provisions, however, is that it should be the act that is punishable and not that cognizance should be taken of the person who performed the act and we are therefore unable to make any change.

†The Bill enjoys the support of most of the hon. members, the exceptions being the hon. members for Houghton, Parktown, Durban Central and Cape Town Gardens and the temporary independent hon. member for Bryanston, who support the amendment. I want to dwell a little longer on the speech of the hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. member for Houghton criticized the composition of the commission. She wanted a commission consisting of gynaecologists, obstetricians, medical practitioners, psychiatrists, sociologists, lawyers and representatives of women’s organizations. She does not include persons from a religious body and I wonder if she regards them as being unnecessary. However, let us look at the composition of the Select Committee, as it was so aptly described by the hon. member for Umlazi. The Select Committee consisted of four medical practitioners, two jurists, a sociologist, a pharmacist, an ex-clergyman and an ex-police officer.

All politicians!

They have come a long way before being elevated to that eminence. The Select Commitee was, more representative of different professions than even the hon. member envisaged. But that is not all. The hon. member’s biggest grouse was that the commission was composed of politicians—she too is one from time to time—and that decisions were arrived at by a lot of “male chauvinist p …”. She was not so sure about what she wanted to put after the “p”.

I was, but it was just not parliamentary.

At the time she reconsidered her original intention. In other words, she wanted a body of persons to investigate and report on the matter and that, eventually, politicians had to decide. She wanted politicians to weigh the evidence. In what other way can this Bill come before the House if politicians do not weigh the evidence? Apparently the hon. member does not have any confidence in politicians. There is one question I want to ask the hon. member, namely: Who supplied the politicians with the facts, the figures and the opinions for their investigation? They were churchmen, social worker, specialists in many fields, medical specialists, gynaecologists, jurists, the nursing profession, Bantu homeland authorities, the Indian Council, family planning associations and the S.A. Police. These people are more representative of expert and public opinion than can be found any where, better even than those the hon. member had in mind. I also wish to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the question of whether an abortion is necessary will still be in the hands of the medical profession. The hon. member for Brentwood also pointed this out to the hon. member. The only condition laid down is that the condition of the woman must constitute a serious threat to her health and that the continued pregnancy must create a danger of permanent damage to the mental health of the woman. Here again, of course, the question as to the integrity of the psychiatric profession comes in. The psychiatrist is to be consulted for a second opinion. As far as this is concerned, my mind is at ease. If these requirements were not included, we could just as well have dropped the Bill. From the weight of evidence it is clear the Bill is regarded as being very necessary. It is not a categorical requirement in this Bill that this, that, or the other condition must be specifically present in all instances. It is the medical practitioner or the psychiatrist who must decide whether a specific condition constitutes a danger to the mental or the physical health of a patient. In other words, the opinions expressed in cases like these will be the opinions of medical practitioners, all specialists in their respective fields. I want to state categorically that this Bill was never intended as a means for population control. Let us be very clear about that. The World Health Organization is completely opposed to it, as the hon. member for Newcastle pointed out. The Government is also dead against it, so let us not waste any more time on that issue.

The hon. member referred to the Lane Commission. I have dealt at some length with what the hon. member said about the Bill, but I think this is right because she also mentioned quite a few aspects which did crop up in other speeches. She considered the Lane Commission to have been very well-constituted, but what were the consequences in law of the decisions of that commission? Let me quote from an article which appeared in Rapport on 9 February 1975 under the title “Aborsiewette: Planned teen uitbuiters”. I think the hon. member for Umlazi also mentioned this. The article reads:

Aborsiewette het gister hier en in Manilla ter sprake gekom. In Londen het die Britse Regering planne aangekondig om op te tree teen uitbuiters van die wettige aborsiestelsel wat jaarliks so-wat 60 000 buitelandse meisies na die land lok … Die Britse Onder-minister van Gesondheid, Dr. David Owen, het aan sy Parlement gesê dat huidige aborsiewetgewing voortaan baie strenger toegepas gaan word om wanpraktyke uit te skakel.

A further article appeared in the Sunday Express of 9 February under the title “200 000 abortions in United Kingdom last year”. It reads—

*The hon. member for Krugersdorp also highlighted this point with the figures he mentioned—

†I should like to remind the hon. member for Parktown that I, too, can be a little melodramatic if I want to. There is really no acceptable compromise between these two points of view, and now I am referring to the points of view of the Abortion Reform League on the one side and the Roman Catholic Church on the other. The one advocates abortion on demand while the other is dead against it. We must strike a happy medium somewhere. We bear a great responsibility and cannot simply shy away from the problems on either side. There is perhaps no acceptable compromise between these two points of view, and there is barely an acceptable compromise to be found between the philosophy underlying what some of the people on the other side advocate and what we, in our approach to this problem, believe to be right. The present argument centres upon whether the words “grave risk to a mother’s health” should be included as a criterion by which doctors can judge whether to authorize abortion or not. That is difficult. The concept is a broad one which is sometimes very flexibly applied. Such words would, of course, be interpreted in different ways by different doctors depending on whether they supported the practice or not. I must tell hon. members that in England recently a report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has indicated that they are having staff problems and problems in providing beds in hospitals because many of these beds are filled by people in good health who come for abortions on demand while many other medical and surgical emergency cases, involving people in dire need of treatment, must wait. Is this what the hon. member wants in South Africa?

[Inaudible.]

This is what it is going to lead to and this is what the British Act led to since it was introduced in 1967. These are the facts as reported by the Commission.

In regard to the hon. member’s objection to the differentiation between physical and mental grounds before an abortion can be done, I may mention that it is fairly easy to differentiate between the mental and the physical aspects. At times they are intertwined but mostly one is able to differentiate between them. As I have said before at the moment there are only two mental grounds on which an abortion may be allowed, but that may change in future. We cannot be too dogmatic on psychiatrists’ opinions because they sometimes differ amongst themselves. We shall not ignore the psychiatry profession, but we shall keep in contact with them and from time to time we shall consult them. Nevertheless, what is accepted today may not be acceptable tomorrow or vice versa.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Did the Society of Psychiatrists submit any opinion on the Bill as it stands?

At the moment the Society of Psychiatrists has some reservations on some aspects of the Bill.

Could you tell us what they are?

I am not able to tell the hon. member what they are at the moment. We can elucidate on that later on during the Committee Stage. I think, however, that the hon. member should endeavour to work for the social and moral upliftment of the peoples of this country. Then abortions will be less prolific.

The hon. member and some other hon. members also mentioned the Immorality Act. This Act provides that intercourse with a female under the age of 16 years is unlawful carnal intercourse. We have omitted that type of unlawful carnal intercourse from the present Bill. On the other hand, the Marriage Act permits the marriage of people of 15 years of age and even under. Where must we draw the line? The hon. member should tell us. There is only one thing which we can do and I said it at the start, i.e. only medical grounds should form the basis for such measures. A woman of 15 is able …

A woman of 15? Rather a child of 15!

Take the example of a woman of 15 who is able to conceive a child and who is in good health and in good care. I do not think that age as such should be the first consideration in legislation. Social aspects may however have to be considered. This is a question where there could be flexibility in our approach. If a woman of 15 is healthy and able to conceive a child, you cannot have age alone as an absolute indication for an abortion. There must also be medical grounds for an abortion. We have provided for this in the Bill.

I think I am safe in summing up the hon. member’s approach by saying that she wants a social disgrace safeguard. I do not think that it is for the Government to shield me, for example, by the provision of a social disgrace safeguard.

That is not what I want.

Yes, that is what the hon. member wanted. The hon. member really had in mind that shame accompanied any instance where a child of 15 or a child under 16 falls pregnant. She says that one must be able to side-step the shame and that must be provided by law. I do not think you can expect the Government to act in that respect.

The law always protects children.

The hon. member says she would have supported the Bill in its original form. This Bill provides for more stringent measures where continued pregnancy constitutes a serious threat to the mental health of the woman. I agree we made that more strict than it was before. However, it was found in England—and this was corroborated by what the hon. member for Albany said—that mental health as such was such a wide term that it led to abuses. “Mental health” is not so easily defined. It is not mental disorder that is enshrined in this Bill but mental health as such. However, as I have said, that term has led to abuses. In 86% of cases that is the reason given on forms. In England in 77% of the cases is given that as a reason. That is why we had to confine ourselves to what is really important, and that is the danger of permanent damage to mental health. That is what we have confined ourselves to at present. In the future we might find conditions, even sociological conditions, contributing in the development of permanent mental ill-health. That might have an effect on the decision of a psychiatrist. I am not excluding the opinions of psychiatrists; I have faith in their integrity.

The working party I spoke of, namely that of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that in Eastern European countries which had had very liberal laws on abortion, it was decided after 20 years that more restrictions had to be imposed because of the serious effects of legalized abortions on the health and reproductive capacity of women, on the stability of the family and on the morality of the country and especially of its youth. These are three most important factors to consider. With such evidence at our disposal I think it would be irresponsible and foolish for us to embark upon a path that might lead us to the same unfortunate position with which England has to cope with at the moment.

*Now that I have dealt with the arguments raised by the hon. member for Houghton, arguments which will not, in any event, win any converts—she is compromised to vote against this Bill—I just want to extend my thanks to the hon. member for Umlazi for his remarks. He knows by virtue of his work what cases of these kind can give rise to. He and I know how often the Police and district surgeons have to deal with problems of this kind. If there is anyone with experience in this regard, then it is the medical practitioners, particularly the district surgeons, and the policemen who carry the responsibility of taking many of these people by the hand. The hon. member’s unconditional support is therefore greatly appreciated. I have nothing more to add except just to say that it has struck me that after so many years he is still so interested in this matter.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West dealt with the legal aspects thoroughly. He went into the matter extremely thoroughly and outlined the problems. He pointed to the lack of uniformity, to the unprotected medical practitioners and to the claims of modern times. He also raised the question of sterilization. In my opinion he made an important contribution. I want to give him the assurance that I have taken cognizance of the Commission’s report in this regard, and that I shall give the matter the necessary attention.

Then there is the hon. member for Parktown.

†Without carefully listening to the various matters raised, or to the various opinions of members on both sides of the House, this hon. member came with this statement at the beginning—just the blatant statement—that Nationalists and the people who agree with them lived in a nightmare world. Yet, all churches, homeland authorities, jurists and just about the whole of the medical profession gave evidence to the effect that this Bill is the right Bill. I suppose that they, too, live in a nightmare world. As against that only the two members—or let me say the three or four members—and the two other independent temporary members and one or two United Party members are wide awake. I regard this as impertinence. I am not reproaching him, but, in any case, he is now under this blanket for the time being and, as far as this is concerned, he must at least take the beating.

The hon. member speaks about the inalienable right of every woman to decide for herself about herself and about her own body. I think that this is a fallacious concept and that it is completely wrong. In the case of conception or abortion a woman does not decide for herself. What about the unborn child? A child’s nervous system is formed after 40 days. He is then virtually a human being and has life. What about this child for which the woman is responsible? What about the father, what about society?

The hon. member only thinks about the woman. It is a melodramatic and a very one-sided approach to a very complex problem. I feel that he was very well answered by the hon. member for Westdene.

*I should like to thank the hon. member for Westdene because he gave the hon. member for Parktown sound advice. He also spoke from practical experience, the practical experience of a person who has had a great deal to do with people of this kind, people who have had very serious problems. I want to associate myself with him by saying that I am satisfied with the Commission of Inquiry. I said that at the start and I do not want to repeat it. But a woman is not just a woman. There are also social considerations. She is not isolated and no individual has absolute sovereignty. Let us realize this now and stop adopting humanistic—although not always wrong—approaches of this kind. There are approaches, as the hon. member for Rosettenville said, which are just a little too ultra-liberal and individualistic. By adopting them one deviates from a logical approach to matters.

The hon. member for Pinetown made quite an interesting speech and he was enthusiastic. The hon. member for Durban Central also came along with the idea of “back-street abortions” again.

†As far as back-street abortions are concerned, I would like to read what the findings were of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. This was published some time ago. I quote—

This was 1972—

*In other words, the evidence we have indicates that it is an absolutely false argument that one will reduce these back-street abortions by giving legal recognition to abortions. I do not think we need to go into this matter much more deeply.

†The hon. member for Umbilo also referred to back-street abortions, which I have just dealt with. He also mentioned the question of family planning which is so important. He was also a little bit worried about the problems of administration and the many forms which will have to be completed under what some people describe as a bureaucratic system, but I can tell him that because of certain changes that we have made and certain propositions that I put some two years ago to the provinces and the local authorities and the universities, we now have an integrated service. I think even the part-time psychiatrists might eventually come on a payroll on an integrated basis. They will work with the provinces and the local authorities and the universities, and these people will be much more readily available than in the past. I do not think therefore that the hon. member need have any worries in that regard. I may come back to this later on.

*Sir, the hon. member for Newcastle emphasized a very important point that I just want to repeat, because I want it to sink in among our people, and this is that at this stage, family planning and eventual population control, as the South African community is prepared to accept it, is by no means a factor in abortion. It will only be possible to justify abortion on medical grounds. I am pleased that the hon. member emphasized this once again. The aspect of a permanent effect on the mental condition of such a patient is one which we shall investigate. This is a matter about which there are many differences of opinion; we will not be able to be dogmatic about this and simply leave it as it is. We shall move ahead in the future, in cooperation with the profession concerned, but we shall not be able to permit the abuses allowed elsewhere.

The hon. member for Gardens again came back to the right of a woman to decide for herself. I think I have already replied to that. The hon. member for Caledon really contributed a very fine statement of this matter here, historically and otherwise, and he really brought balance to this debate. I want to congratulate him on making an exceptionally fine contribution here. As I do, he has many years of experience of this matter, and I think he spoke not only from conviction but also from experience. The hon. member also raised the matter of a second opinion in cases of abortion, but that is an accepted principle. Sir, I just want to mention here, so that our people will understand this very clearly, that when we talk about abortion under the provisions of this Act, then we are talking about a case where one is dealing with a living foetus and where there is nothing else wrong with the pregnancy as such, but a therapeutic abortion is an instance where one merely performs a therapeutic act which is inevitable.

†it is an inevitable abortion, such as one also finds sometimes in the political sense, and there you must simply remove the products of conception and then everything is in order.

*In that case one is dealing with the products of conception that must be removed, and that information must be provided at the institution where it is done, but this is not a case of having to fill in reams of forms; that is simply a medical, therapeutic act that must be performed, and I think that our medical practitioners have always been very responsible in that respect.

†I do not think I will dwell long on what the hon. member for Pinelands said. I was a little surprised, when he started speaking about the Christian view, to hear him ask the question, “Who says whether it is always right?” Now this is so, perhaps, to a certain extent—and I must say that I have quite a lot of respect for his debating ability as such—but I did think he had a moral approach which leans a little more towards my side than towards the side of the hon. member for Houghton, and I thought he would support this Bill without any reservations. Yet he came here with arguments with which I cannot agree. He was also advocating euthanasia on the unborn child. It amounted to that. He mentioned something about a woman with seven children who had been raped by her husband. Now this is a case in point, to which we have to apply our minds, because in cases like that the sociological aspect and the mental aspect and this aspect of assault come into it. I think we must also leave it to the integrity of the psychiatrist. There is nothing to prohibit the social worker from coming in and also giving her opinion. All these cases can be viewed from all sides, and as far as I am concerned there is perhaps even a case to be made out in such circumstances.

*The hon. member for Bryanston also adopted a very dogmatic approach, but unfortunately I cannot say a great deal more about this. What he asked for amounts to abortion on demand.

†But then he made a completely unsubstantiated and false statement, that the number of back-street abortions had been reduced in Britain since the Act. I have just given hon. members evidence to the contrary.

*I think, therefore, that he did not do his homework properly. But apart from that he also did something which I think we, as men, must take note of. He also spoke about “male chauvinists”, and one must take note of that. In a case such as this each side had better look to itself, as well.

Towards the end of this debate—and I do not want to stretch it out much further —it was almost without exception members on the other side who aired their opinions. I found this highly interesting; it seems to me that because a certain section of the hon. members opposite are now no longer under the control of any Whip, every man took his chance to say his say, with or without knowledge. I am pleased that you provided them with the opportunity, Sir. It also provided me with the opportunity to realize the degree of ignorance that exists in regard to this matter.

†The hon. member for Green Point dealt with the socio-economic factors, which he felt should not be the determining factors, and which should never be primary in one’s decision as to whether or not an abortion should be done. He was against abortion on demand. I am not reproaching hon. members for being against some of these clauses, or having reservations about some aspects of the Bill. I am not worried about that. That is necessary perhaps. We must argue these points. It is good for the public, and it is good for the case in point, in any case.

*I am pleased he raised all those aspects. Now we only have the hon. member for Orange Grove left to deal with. I really do not want to deal with what he said in great detail, because he spoke very briefly and said very little.

†I think he was a little “kragdadig” in the opinions he expressed. It just boiled down to the fact, that he is completely committed to abortion on demand, although he did not state it in so many words. I found it so funny. Nearly everybody who stood up and said, “I am not for abortion on demand”, immediately afterwards went on and substantiated the arguments as best they could for abortion on demand.

*The hon. member for Durban Point stated his case in a balanced way. I may not agree with him as far as the cases of persons under 16 years are concerned, but that is not relevant now and he can raise it again in the Committee Stage.

†The hon. members for Albany, East London North and Pietermaritzburg North presented similar arguments. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North however mentioned something about the sanctity of life, but I think he was a little off course there. I was really a little appalled by his lack of knowledge as to what constitutes life as such. He should also have done his homework a little better.

I want to point out that electro-encephalographic waves of an unborn child’s brain can be recorded after 40 days. After 30 days the unborn child has a completely formed nervous system. The hon. member however said that he would not have any objection if the abortion was performed before the unborn child had attained the age of three months. After that the question of life arises. The sanctity of life is a matter which is involved all along. It is something that must be considered in our arguments all along.

*Although there are still a number of other reasons, I do not want to go into this any further, except to point out that the prenatal interests of a child are even protected by law. If a pregnant woman is run down and killed by a motor vehicle, a claim can be instituted on behalf of the unborn child. Even though the woman had only been four or five months pregnant at that stage, this would still be a matter which can be argued in court. There are many cases that can be cited to prove that the sanctity of life cannot be specifically determined at three months.

An unborn child can also inherit.

Yes, that is so and I am pleased that the hon. member agrees with me in this respect.

I have already dealt with the reservations in regard to State psychiatrists. I just want to point out further that as far as this is concerned, we are now able to do our duty in regard to therapeutic abortion and the obligations to the public that must be honoured. I do not believe that there is any problem in this regard. We have teams of experts—such as psychiatrists, psychometricians and clinical psychologists. These are experts who decide on these matters and are not people who merely place a stethoscope on a patient and then take a decision. These aspects are considered fully and I do not believe that hon. members need to be concerned about the administrative work. There is no hospital, not even Groote Schuur, which can handle 2 000 cases, in which there will be so much work that the staff will not be capable of filling in the forms. In any event they fill in similar forms every day, and I am therefore unable to understand why complaints are now being made about forms they will have to fill in. I believe that it is right that a medical practitioner should make a note of it when he performs a therapeutic abortion because we should have the data necessary to establish what the tendencies are. If there is evidence from a small town that, for example, 30 therapeutic abortions have been done within a month, that will, after all, ring a bell somewhere to the effect that there is a snake in the grass. [Interjections.] Yes, there is not only a snake in the grass. Whatever the case may be, that is the reason why the Secretary must acquire this information confidentially, and not acquire it in such a way that it is known to everyone. I think that we had better forget the snakes and be as pure as the doves, because then we shall be less outspoken. This red tape to which the hon. member refers can result in our being able to learn something when dealing with this matter, and perhaps make changes. The fact that this system was introduced in England and that abortions there increased sevenfold, by no means caused people problems with regard to the filling in of forms. In spite of this the cases of abortion increased. If you are going to have abortion on demand, this work will increase sevenfold, tenfold or even twentyfold.

Legislation is, in fact, an expression of the general will as the Government interprets it. We cannot apply a law—the hon. member for Caledon and other hon. members, too, mentioned this—if the public does not co-operate with us. We gathered the opinions of the public concerning this Bill over a period of three full years. After the hon. member for Rosettenville proposed a motion here, we ascertained with certainty what the public of South Africa wanted over a period of three years. That was before many hon. members opposite came to this House. The public is not in favour of free abortion, but only in favour of abortions being permitted in deserving cases and under strictly controlled circumstances. This, too, is the view of the Government and to me as a medical practitioner this is a sound view, one with which I am able to associate myself. However I reject entirely a total liberalization of the abortion legislation. We have our norms; we must live according to the norms of the majority and if those are the norms of the majority it is the duty of this Government to embody those norms in legislation. This is in fact what we have done. We have a religious population. I am not referring now specifically to the Christian, the Jewish or to any other religion. Among the Zulus, the Mohammedans, the Jews and the Christian faith a total opposition to abortion is to be found. It is our duty to think of everything and all we are doing is carrying out the will, as we see it, of the majority of the population that sent us here. In European countries the authorities had to take steps to make the legislation stricter. Surely we can learn from the experience of these people? We should rather, from the outset, err on the side of strictness than make the mistake of being too liberal, because what one has once given is not always so easy to take back. Hon. members know that better than I do.

The Government does not seek popularity. It regards this legislation as justified and as the expression of the will of the majority of our people. Hon. members can have a free vote on it if they feel like it, but they were definitely not elected on the platform of abortion or no abortion. We did not conduct an election on that point. However this is a measure that has been discussed by the Government and accepted by the caucus. If the United Party’s caucus discusses something and some of its members do not agree, then, after all, they can sit in the independent benches, not so? No legisation is perfect; this one is no exception. To members who have reservations and problems with it, I can only say that we shall possibly have to make changes. However we are going to approach this legislation with an open mind. As long as I am here, I shall approach it in that way because it is in my nature to do so. In addition, however, I shall always approach it bearing in mind the will of the majority of our people which constitutes public opinion in this country.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, P. A. Pyper, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. v. Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman and Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side.

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Main Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, P. A. Pyper, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. v. Z. Slabbert. Mrs. H. Suzman and Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.